The costs of solar are down

A recent Viewpoint had old information.

Glenn Niblock's recent Viewpoint (PNJ, April 13) that it's too expensive to convert solar energy confirms that he is living in the past. The costs of solar are down and subsidies are not necessary to make solar an economically wise choice.

I could write a book on the glaring inaccuracies in Niblock's viewpoint. Instead, I will focus on some current facts about solar energy.

Niblock states that a 116-megawatt system would take up 5,100 acres. A good average in Northwest Florida is five acres per megawatt of solar, so 116 megawatts times five acres equals 580 acres. That is less than one square mile of land – nowhere near the 5,100 acres that Niblock thinks is necessary. Speaking of land usage, why not use some of the brownfield areas around Pensacola to produce solar energy?

Niblock declares that solar costs from two to four times as much as electricity from natural gas or coal. Compass Solar Energy runs system designs on a well-received, industry approved, bankable program call PVsyst. The cost of a large scale solar project greater than 20 megawatts can be as low at $0.06 per kilowatt-hour to operate. That's $0.06 for the next 30 years. With retail costs at $0.10 to $0.12, it makes for a viable and profitable system. More importantly, what do you think utility retail costs will be in 30 years?

It is absolutely untrue that solar plants require employing more people to operate and maintain them. Solar PV systems have no moving parts, and solar panels have a 30-plus year life cycle – panels carry a manufacturer's warranty with a minimum 25-year power-production guarantee.

I would like to know where Niblock came up with a cost of $3.6 billion for a 116 megawatt solar PV system. On large scale solar projects, the industry is currently seeing installed costs from $1.40 to $1.75 per watt. If you add operating and maintenance (which is generally paid out of the revenue stream), you may increase the overall cost by 10 to 20 percent depending on system size. So, if we use $1.75 per watt and 20 percent for operation and maintenance you only get a cost of $243 million. That's million not billion. Huge difference.

If solar electric power is not a solution for our energy future, why is the U.S. military continuing to install solar on its bases to make its energy supply more secure, distributed, affordable and independent?

The above points are facts. I have not even gotten into the environmental benefits of solar. That's another book for another time.